Working together? Parent and local authority views on the process of obtaining appropriate educational provision for children with autism spectrum disorders

Background: There is general agreement across all interested parties that a process of working together is the best way to determine which school or educational setting is right for an individual child with autism spectrum disorder. In the UK, families and local authorities both desire a constructive working relationship and see this as the best means by which to reach an agreement to determine where a child should be educated. It has been shown in published works 1 1. Batten and colleagues (Make schools make sense. Autism and education: the reality for families today; London: The National Autistic Society, 2006). View all notes that a constructive working relationship is not always achieved. Purpose: This small-scale study aims to explore the views of both parents and local authorities, focussing on how both parties perceive and experience the process of determining educational provision for children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) within an English context. Sample, design and method: Parental opinion was gathered through the use of a questionnaire with closed and open responses. The questionnaire was distributed to two national charities, two local charities and 16 specialist schools, which offered the questionnaire to parents of children with ASD, resulting in an opportunity sample of 738 returned surveys. The views of local authority personnel from five local authorities were gathered through the use of semi-structured interviews. Data analyses included quantitative analysis of the closed response questionnaire items, and theme-based qualitative analysis of the open responses and interviews with local authority personnel. Results: In the majority of cases, parents in the survey obtained their first choice placement for their child. Despite this positive outcome, survey data indicated that parents found the process bureaucratic, stressful and time consuming. Parents tended to perceive alternative placement suggestions as financially motivated rather than in the best interests of the child. Interviews with local authority personnel showed an awareness of these concerns and the complex considerations involved in determining what is best for an individual child. Conclusions: This small-scale study highlights the need for more effective communication between parents of children with ASDs and local authority personnel at all stages of the process

From matron to matrix: gender, authority and (dis)embodiment in Beckett’s Theatre

An examination of Samuel Beckett's representation of women in a selection of his plays for stage and radio.

Ideological dominance in recreation provision: towards a theory of Local Authority response to Compulsory Competitive Tendering in Britain

This paper considers how the delivery of public leisure services in Britain has been affected by the imposition of Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT) on the management of facilities. In particular, it focuses on the changing relationship between the central and local levels of government, theorising a tripartite local response to CCT, incorporating local statism, post-Fordist rejection of CCT and post- Fordist compliance with the aims of the central administration. The paper then discusses the actual implementation of CCT, relating the theorised responses to those witnessed in practice. This results in the delineation of a continuum of stances, ranging from pragmatic forms of local statism, such as the protection of the former direct labour force, to centrist attempts to combine the ethics of socialism with the mechanics of the market, to an outright rejection of state organisation and control. The paper concludes that although legitimate attempts have been made to protect local services, the outcome of the CCT process has undoubtedly been the regeneration of public leisure provision away from its service roots towards a market model of provision.

Legal outlier, again? U.S. felon suffrage: comparative and international human rights perspectives

The judiciousness of American felon suffrage policies has long been the subject of scholarly debate, not least due to the large number of affected Americans: an estimated 5.3 million citizens are ineligible to vote as a result of a criminal conviction. This article offers comparative law and international human rights perspectives and aims to make two main contributions to the American and global discourse. After an introduction in Part I, Part II offers comparative law perspectives on challenges to disenfranchisement legislation, juxtaposing U.S. case law against recent judgments rendered by courts in Canada, South Africa, Australia, and by the European Court of Human Rights. The article submits that owing to its unique constitutional stipulations, as well as to a general reluctance to engage foreign legal sources, U.S. jurisprudence lags behind an emerging global jurisprudential trend that increasingly views convicts’ disenfranchisement as a suspect practice and subjects it to judicial review. This transnational judicial discourse follows a democratic paradigm and adopts a “residual liberty” approach to criminal justice that considers convicts to be rights-holders. The discourse rejects regulatory justifications for convicts’ disenfranchisement, and instead sees disenfranchisement as a penal measure. In order to determine its suitability as a punishment, the adverse effects of disenfranchisement are weighed against its purported social benefits, using balancing or proportionality review. Part III analyzes the international human rights treaty regime. It assesses, in particular, Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”), which proclaims that “every citizen” has a right to vote without “unreasonable restrictions.” The analysis concludes that the phrase “unreasonable restrictions” is generally interpreted in a manner which tolerates certain forms of disenfranchisement, whereas other forms (such as life disenfranchisement) may be incompatible with treaty obligations. This article submits that disenfranchisement is a normatively flawed punishment. It fails to treat convicts as politically-equal community members, degrades them, and causes them grave harms both as individuals and as members of social groups. These adverse effects outweigh the purported social benefits of disenfranchisement. Furthermore, as a core component of the right to vote, voter eligibility should cease to be subjected to balancing or proportionality review. The presumed facilitative nature of the right to vote makes suffrage less susceptible to deference-based objections regarding the judicial review of legislation, as well as to cultural relativity objections to further the international standardization of human rights obligations. In view of this, this article proposes the adoption of a new optional protocol to the ICCPR proscribing convicts’ disenfranchisement. The article draws analogies between the proposed protocol and the ICCPR’s “Optional Protocol Aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty.” If adopted, the proposed protocol would strengthen the current trajectory towards expanding convicts’ suffrage that emanates from the invigorated transnational judicial discourse.